The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01-11-1995 Planning Commission minutes~1NNING COMMISSION MINUT• JANUARY 11, 1995 City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruih•ale A~~enue Regular Meeting The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Asfour. Roll Call Present: Abshire, Caldwell, Kaplan, Patrick, Siegfried, Asfour Late: 1\Tone Absent: Murakami Cite Attorney Riback was not present. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ORAL COMMUNICATIO\TS 1`TO comments «-ere offered. MINUTES December 14, 1995 COMMISSIONERS CALDVVELL/KAPLAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE DECEMBER 14, 1994 MINUTES ~?JITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: - Page ~, last paragraph, line ~, replace the Ford "relay" with "r1~>". - Page 9, paragraph 3 amended to read: "Commissioner Caldwell asked if this application triggered discussion of «-hether Parking District n 1 could be ~e~ irstr~pe If that ~~~as the case and the Commission decided to mo~~e for~.~~ard with this in order ~to accommodate ne~i~ de~~elopment, ~~•ould the applicant incur the cost of the .................... ~t~c'? Planner VValgren responded that the City has budgeted and scheduled for the n~ zestrp~ to occur. - Page 11, paragraph 4 amended to read: "Commissioner Cald~~=ell expressed concern «-ith the entire area. She noted that there is no erosion control ~ r~iae in the «~hole construction area...." - Page 12, paragraph 3, first sentence amended to read: "Chairman Asfour requested staff .............. clarification ~ ab~ the comment made regarding the fact that...." - Page 13, paragraph 1, second sentence amended to read:: She asl~e~ir the plans for fencing the area ~~eri the restrictions of fencing in t-he tlii~ subdivision.!-l~lsi~e: - Page 13, paragraph 2 amended to read: "Commissioner Caldwell noted that there nr-e -; PLAl~'NI1~TG COMMISSI~ MINUTES • JA\TUARY 11, 199 PAGE - 2 - i~ guest parking proposed on the lot 2~ side. - Page 13, paragraph ~, last sentence amended to read: "....She felt that it ~-as harder to judge ri s:~at~~ because there are other Mediterranean home std-les rithrea." - Page 14, paragraph 4, third sentence amended to read: "...He inquired if the applicant wished to have the Commission make a decision tonight or «~hether the applicant «~ished to have the application continued to allcn~.~ ~ him tc acI~ress.: corlt~ritsi~~e ~c~mm~sston, ... ........... ................ - Page 16, paragraph 6, third and fourth sentences amended to read: "...She asked what the t~ is legally permitted to do in the way of penalizing the applicant for the illegal remo~-a1 of the tree(s) so as to r ~ete~r future illegal removal of trees. ...... . She inquired how staff determined the valuation of ~e illegall}:. rem~~~e trees...." - Page 16, paragraph 7 amended to read: "Commissioner Cald«-e11 stated that she vas concerned that the City may have been laae~ in the past in not pursuing the rri~i€~ri .::::: penalty that is permitted under ordinance...." - Page 17, paragraph 7 amended to read: Commissioner Caldwell recommended that condition 10.a. be amended to read: "An itemized listing of proposed landscaping which reveals that the value of ~'^^*~„'- -„^*°r~^' replacement trees for illegally removed trees is equivalent to the valuation of the removed oak tree (52,238)...." - Page 20; paragraph ~, first sentence amended to read: "Commissioner Caldwell ................. informed the Commission that the Tree Preservation Committee...(if the risk tree ................ ................ am~~ is a lot greater).... THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER MURAKAMI ABSENT). ORAL COMMUNICATION No comments «~ere offered. REPORT OF POSTING AGENNDA Pursuant to Government Code ~49~4.2, the agenda for this meeting «-as properly posted on January 6, 199. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET l~TO corrections were reported. ~- PLANNING COMMISSI• MI\TUTES • JANUARY 11, 199 PAGE - 3 - PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR 1. SD-94-002 - Lester/Von Dorsten; 14120 Saratoga Avenue, request for DR-94-011 - Tentative Parcel Map, Design Review and Variance approvals to DR-94-012 - subdivide a 1.3 acre parcel into t«-o (2) separate parcels and to V-94-003 - construct t«-o new single-family residences requiring Variances to Zoning Ordinance development regulations. The subject property is an interior parcel located within an R-1-20,000 zoning district. (Cont. to 1/2~/9~ at the request of the applicant; application expires 3/29/90. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2. V-92-015.1 - Gurney; 18241 Purdue Drive, request for cone-year extension of a previously approved Variance to allow a 453 sq. ft. addition to an existing 1.914 sq. ft. residence. The addition «~ould extend an existing non-conforming building line that is setback eight feet from the side property line «-here 1 ~ feet is required per Chapter 1 ~ of the City Code. The parcel is approximately 8.000 sq. ft. and is looted within an R-1-10,000 zoning district. COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALEI~TDAR ITEMS 1 AND 2 BY IV1I1`TUTE ACTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER MURAKAMI ABSENTT). PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. V-93-018.1 - Moley; 19910 Robin Way, request to modify a previously approved Variance application in order to allo~~- the construction of a 24 square foot bay ~~-indow «-hich encroaches into an exterior side yard setback per Chapter 1 ~ of the City Code. The parcel is approximately 39,073 sq. ft. and is located «-ithin an R-1-20,000 zone district. Planner Kermoyan presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Asfour opened this item to public hearing at 7:43 p.m. Gary Slough, project architect, apologized for construction occurring on site prior to receiving City approval. He informed the Commission that the «-indo«- «-as installed without his knowledge. Chairman Asfour stated that he spoke to the contractor on site w-ho stated that the window .vas installed to see «°hat it would look like and that should the Commission not approve the variance request. the windo~~- would be removed. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/KAPLANN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:46 P.M. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER M[JRAKAMI ABSENT). _ ; ~- ~ PLANNING COMMISSI• MINUTES • JANUARY 11. 199 PAGE - 4 - Commissioner Abshire noted that there were trees that may be impacted. Planner Kermoyan informed the Commission that he ~i~ould perform a site visit to ensure compliance ~~~ith the Tree Preservation Ordinance. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/KAPLAN MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. V- 93-018.1 PER STAFF'S RECOMMEI~TDATIOl~T. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER MUILaKAMI ABSEI~TT). 4. DR-94-049 - Voisinet; 14100 Saratoga-Sunn3~-ale Rd., request for Design Review approval to construct a ne~~~ 2.598 sq. ft. two-story residence per Chapter 1 ~ of the City Code. The existing one-story residence ~~•ill be demolished to accommodate construction. The parcel is approximately 7,677 sq. ft. and is located ~~-ithin an R-1-10,000 zone district. Planner Kermoyan presented the staff report on this item. He informed the Commission that the applicant has raised questions regarding conditions contained in the resolution. The first question relates to the condition relating to the fencing located «-ithin the front yard (eastern portion of the property) belonging to the adjoining neighbors property. A condition of approval requires that the applicant decrease the size of the fence to conform with the current fencing ordinance (three feet in height within a front yard setback). The second issue deals with a sanitation easement on the vacant parcel. He informed the Commission that the adjoining neighbor spoke to staff and expressed concern that trenching. within the easement would encroach into the dripline of the oak tree that is located on the street. He explained to the applicant that a condition may be included that would require city arborist revie«- to make sure that proper preservation measures are incorporated to avoid any potential impact to the oak tree. Commissioner Kaplan expressed concern with the oak tree and trenching that would occur underneath the tree. She was not sure how the City handled situations where an easement is involved across a neighboring property. Planner Kermoyan informed the Commission that staff was under the assumption that the hook-up to the sanitation would be connected to Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road but that the applicant has informed him that CalTrans, «~ho has jurisdiction over that road. has decided that it ~i-ould not be possible because of the extent of «-ork invoh~ed to connect the sanitation line. The applicant has also advised staff that on the title report of that vacant parcel, they do have ingress/egress rights. Commissioner Kaplan asked if the City has been provided with evidence that indicates that the applicant has the right to cross the other property so that it can be a condition of approval. Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that staff has not seen evidence of the easement but that the applicant would have to provide the evidence at time of building permit application. Commissioner Kaplan inquired if the Public Works Department ~i-ould request an arborist report. Community Development Director Curtis responded that an arborist report may not be required but that staff would make sure that the tree was protected. Commissioner Kaplan asked if the Commission could condition the approval to require hand trenching under the dripline. Community Development Director Curtis responded that the Commission could so condition ,: ~ PLANNING COMMISSI• MI\TUTES • JANUARY 11. 199 PAGE - ~ - Chairman Asfour inquired as to the status of the fence situation as described by Planner Kermoyan and whether the propern~ owner would be required to correct any violations. Community- Development Director Curtis stated that if the fence w>as not located on the applicant's property, the applicant would not be responsible for correcting existing violations. Commissioner Kaplan asked if the City could notify the adjacent property owner of the fence violation. Community Development Director Curtis responded that the City could notify the adjacent property owner of any existing violation. Chairman Asfour opened this item to public hearing at 7:~9 p.m. David Pruitt, project architect, informed the Commission that there may be a problem with the fence located to the left of the property. He was not sure if the adjacent owner would agree to reduce the fence to three feet. He also informed the Commission that the deed for the lot next door contained a ten foot easement for sewer lines. John Voisinet, applicant, stated that he was not sure if the adjacent owner would agree to the removal of the fence due to the safety of the children playing in the front yard. He stated that the proposal for the sewer line was the easiest way to yet to the sewer and that the Sanitation District has stated the manner in which it is to be done. The District did not approve going across four lanes of the highway. He stated that he would agree to hand trench and follow all codes and restrictions. COMMISSIOI~TERS KAPLAN/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:03 P.M. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER MURAKAMI ABSENT). Commissioner Kaplan asked if the Commission w-as within its right to require the removal of an illegal fence located on a joint property line. Community Development Director Curtis responded that the Commission could add a condition that would require removal of the fence. Commissioner Caldwell recommended that condition 4. second sentence be amended to read: "...No irrigation or ~ trenching shall encroach into the driplines of any existing oak trees ort the applie~ant'~.;;c~r the adjacent~.propc~rty. unless approved by the City Arborist 'cl" :ci~ifc~rni.ance ti~~ith~tlc~~~City~ ~Arbetr..ist requirements; Commissioner Siegfried recommended that the fence be required to conform to existing code. If the neighbor has a problem. the fence issue could return to the Commission for further review. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR.94-049, AME\TDINTG CONDITION 4 TO READ AS RECOMMENDED BY COMMISSIONER CALDVdELL. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER MURAKAMI ABSENT). PLANNING COMMISSI• MINUTES • JANUARY 11, 1995 PAGE - 6 - ~. DR-94-045 - Leu; 20395 Sea Gull Way, request for Design Review approval to construct a new 3,32 sq. ft. two-story residence per Chapter 1 ~ of the Cite Code. The existing one-store residence «~ill be demolished to accommodate construction. The parcel is approximately 11,20 sq. ft. and is located v~~ithin an R-1-10,000 zone district. Planner Kermo}'an presented the staff report on this item. He informed the Commission that the adjoining neighbor, Mr. Ingleson, located to the right of this site has submitted an 11 x 17 site plan of both properties. Mr. Ingleson has expressed concern regarding the possible invasion of privacy associated ~~°ith the second story addition and that Mr. Ingleson is requesting that a condition be added that ~~-ould require the applicant to plant some type of evergreen trees to aid in the preservation of privacy. Chairman Asfour opened this item to public hearing at 8:08 p.m. David Perng, project architect, informed the Commission that the home was designed to minimize the private impact to adjacent neighbors. Mr. Leu, property ov~mer, informed the Commission that the acacia trees located on the right hand side of the property were proposed to be retained. Regarding Mr. Engleson's concern for privacy, he stated that he «-ould try to mitigate his concerns b}~ committing to provide evergreen vegetation on the east side of the property. Commissioner Siegfried recommended that the number and type of trees to be planted be subject to staffs approval. Mr. Engleson, 20381 Sea Gull VVay, informed the Commission that he did not object to the location of the second ston~ and supported the application and design. He requested that there be some provision to provide back yard privacy. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/KAPLAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARI\TG AT 8:13 P.M. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER MURAKAMI ABSENT). Commissioner Caldwell recommended that condition 6.a. be amended to add the following sentence to read: "The landscape plan shall provide for evergreen tree screening along the east property line per staffs approval." COMMISSIONERS CALDW'ELL/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR-94-045 AMENDING CONDITION 6.A. TO ADD THE LANGUAGE AS RECOMMENDED BY COMMISSIO\TER CALDVVELL. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER MURAKAMI ABSENT). 6. SM-94-010 - Botros; 15015 Gypsy Hill Rd., request for Site Modification approval to allow the construction of a swimming pool «-ith associated decking and an exemption from the hillside fencing requirement to allow the area of enclosure to exceed the permitted 4,000 sq. ft. per the Tentative Map _ ~~ ~ PLANNING COMMISSI• MINUTES JANUARY 11. 199 PAGE - 7 - conditions of approval. The subject property is Lot 27 of the San Marcos Heights subdivision and is located within an R-1-40,000 zoning district. Planner Kermoyan presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Kaplan asked if rear half of the property ~i-as within the open space easement. Planner Kermoyan responded that a private open space easement that encompasses approximately one third of the property is located within the rear yard. Chairman Asfour noted for the record that the back portion of the fence is to be similar to that previously approved for the adjacent lot. Planner Kermoyan informed the Commission that the fence is to be similar to that approved on lot 26 and is so stipulated as a condition of approval. He provided the Commission with an exhibit of approved plans for the adjacent lot. Commissioner Kaplan asked if the proposed wire welded fence ~~-ould enclose the entire rear property. Planner Kermoyan responded that it would enclose the entire rear property. He also noted that Condition ~ should read lot 28, not lot 26. Chairman Asfour opened this item to public hearing at 8:25 p.m. Dr. Adel Botros, 1 ~O1 ~ Gypsy Hill Court, applicant, stated his concurrence with the conditions as discussed. Commissioner Patrick inquired why the entire parcel was being fenced. Dr. Botros responded that the propem• was being fenced for aesthetic purposes. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/CALDWELL MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:26 P.M. THE MOTIOI`T CARRIED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER MURAKAMI ABSENT). Commissioner Patrick stated for the record that she did not support enclosure of the entire parcel. Commissioner Caldwell stated that approvals have been granted in the past for fencing of entire properties. Commissioner Siegfried stated that the fence issue ryas one that the Commission needed to address. However, it was too late to restrict fencing in this subdivision and would rote to support this request and not burden this applicant. COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTIOI\T NO. SM- 94-010, AMENDING CONDITIOI`T ~ TO READ: "FENCII~TG LOCATED ON THE REAR HALF OF THE PROPERTY SHALL BE ~~~"ELDED WIRE WITH REDWOOD POSTS CONSISTENT V~~ITH THAT APPROVED ON LOT ~ 8~1D`AS S}~I(3.uV;1`}"{)N.;);::)iI~;113t"C~ . . "13" i'1Z1~5}:ti~fl•:I~>TFF THE MOTION CARRIED ~-1 WITH COMMISSIONER ..................................... ........................ i PLANNING COMMISSI• MINUTES JANUARY 11, 199 PAGE - 8 - PATRICK VOTING NO AND COMMISSIONER iV1URAKAA~II ABSENT. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission of upcoming dates as follows: - Friday; January 13, 199 Planning Commission Retreat scheduled from 9:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. - A joint work session with the City Council scheduled for February 21. 1995. - Planning Commission Institute scheduled in March. COMMISSIOl\T ITEMS Chairman Asfour requested that any topics that the Commission would like to add to the agenda for the joint meeting with the City Council be provided to him or Community Development Director Curtis. He also informed the Commission that the Mayor has scheduled quarterly luncheons with Committee and Commission Chairs. He asked that the Commission provide him with items that it would like him to bring to their attention. Commissioner Kaplan asked that appeals from Planning Commission actions be scheduled for a topic of discussion for the joint session «-ith the City Council. She stated that she wanted to receive feed back from the City Council as to what it thinks the Commission may be doing «-rong. Commissioner Patrick requested to know what information would be helpful to provide the Council to make their job easier in its review of appeals. Commissioner Siegfried stated that it was not unusual for applicant's to appeal decisions of the Commission. He informed his fello«~ Commissioners that the City Council conducted a public hearing from 8:00 p.m. to 9:1 ~ p.m. for the Chadu`-ick appeal. He felt that the staff report was very clear in support the action taken by the Planning Commission. However, the Council was convinced on a public safety argument that it made sense that Mr. Chadwick take control of the upper part of the hill so that the area could be expanded to provide a fire break. There was no discussion or recognition of the fact that Mr. Chadwick v~-anted the additional land so that he could add a deck to the back yard. The Council vote was 4-1 with Moran voting no. Regarding the second appeal for the fence to be located near West Valley College the vote was 4-1 with Tucker voting no to grant the variance. The basis for the approval of the appeal was that the fence would divide the existing orchard and that the Council did not believe it made any sense to put the fence in the middle of the orchard. He stated that the thing that bothered him about the Chadwick appeal ~i-as that there was no recognition or question asked about redesigning the Chadwick home. Commissioner Kaplan felt that if an applicant appeals the decision of the Commission's action, and brings something out that has never been presented to the Commission, that the ne«- :~ ~: ~ ~ PLANNING COMMISSI• MINUTES JANUARY 11. 199 PAGE - 9 - information should return to the Commission for its consideration. Commissioner Kaplan commented that she attended the To«-n Meeting held by the City Council held on Saturday, January 7 and that it ryas well attended by the Kosich's neighbors. She felt that the town meeting was a good vehicle for citizens to address concerns to the City Council and that the process works. Chairman Asfour suggested that the second paragraph of the public notice be amended to read as follows: "If you challenge any of the follo«-ing applications in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing, described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission ~-er prior to the public hearing." Community Development Director Curtis stated that he did not believe that the amendment could be accommodated because it ~~-as a technical issue. The statement is required to inform the public that if it plans to sue the City, the public needs to let the City know what the issues are prior to the public hearing. Commissioner Kaplan asked if the Commission ~~•ould be seein~~ the Negative Declaration for item 2 of the \TOtice of Hearing for the Commission's January 2~, 199 (GPA-94-002, AZO- 94-001 -Kosich; 12325 Saratoga Avenue. Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that it would be provided with the Initial Study and the Negative Declaration for the Kosich applications. He informed the Commission that no action ~-ould be taken at the January 2~ meeting for the Kosich application because the City was in the middle of the 20 day review period for the Negative Declaration. Public testimony would be received and then the application would be continued to another date for final action. COMMUNICATIONS Written 1. Ciri~ Council Minutes 12/7/94 2. Notices for the 1/2~!9~ Planning Commission Minutes Oral City Council ADJOURNMENT -There being no further business, the Commission meeting adjourned at 8:4~ p.m. to 9:00 a.m., Friday. January 13, 1995, Planning Commission Retreat, Saratoga Country Club, 21990 Prospect Road, Saratoga, CA. RESPECTIVELY SUBMITTED, IRMA TORREZ MINUTES CLERK iYPC11229~.SAR